Anyone need help doing research?

I'm bored, stir-crazy and unable to do physical work because of illness. Anybody need research type stuff done? I'm good at gathering information and, if I'm interested in the topic, happy to do it for free currently just out of my own curiosity. I'm not suggesting anyone depend on me for anything important, but for those curious folks who don't have the time to dig around, I'm happy to lend a hand if it's something interesting to me.
I might be willing to do some writing or research stuff that's of less interest to me, but I'd probably want monies or something for that.

This one may be interesting....

In the "nature versus  nurture" debate, there is still a general sentiment amongst one group that destructive/antisocial behavior is something one is born with while another group supports the notion that it derives from one's early-life experiences (and yet a third group that sees it as an interaction between genes and rearing environment).

The childhood ACE study has examined the basis for a host of self- and other-harmful behaviors and has shown a link between adverse childhood history and psychological as well as physiological maladies.   See  https://www.samhsa.gov/capt/practicing-effective-prevention/prevention-behavioral-health/adverse-childhood-experiences

What has not emerged from those studies, most probably because no one has had the time, funding, and/or interest to look into it, is

a)  to what end to high ACE scores predispose individuals to later violence against animals in addition to humans, and
b)  to what end can high ACE scores predict individuals to be less concerned/caring about the non-human world and their own environment of residence?

Given the size of the ACE study, it would be interesting to know if anyone has devised a metric to measure these parameters in adults with varying ACE scores.

"This is your mission, Sarah, should you decide to accept it....As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape/disc will self-destruct in five/ten seconds. Good luck, Sarah!"   [....couldn't help adding the 'Mission:Impossible' frosting..... :-)  ]

That is indeed an interesting topic. I'm afraid I already have strong prejudices based on my personal experience, but this shouldn't affect my ability to accumulate relevant information.
I have noticed that, while all persons I've observed to exhibit primarily antisocial behaviors experienced abuse, neglect and/or abandonment by their biological mother, not all the people I know who've been abused/abandoned by their mothers exhibit antisocial behaviors.
I assume we can exclude hunting/killing livestock for food from violence against animals?
This seems to me to be a lot about empathy, and to whom/what an individual is able to extend it. I'm interested to see whether there's a negative correlation between self-harm vs other-harm in people with high ACE scores. Are you familiar with RAD, Reactive Attachment Disorder? To my understanding it's basically the diagnosis assigned to children who've been passed around from caretaker to caretaker, unable to form stable bonds with them, who exhibit antisocial behavior.

Having worked in early childhood education, this topic is fascinating for me. I've known quite a few young children who were far more antisocial than the norm, and who had loving, competent, nurturing parents and no real trauma in their life. So, to some extent, it appears some antisocial/destructive behaviors are "nature"-based. Now, I haven't yet met these kids as adults, but it would be interesting to know if

1. Because of the nurturing, do they outgrow their antisocial/destructive behaviors.
2. Do children who have these innate tendencies and DON'T have nurturing parents, maintain their destructive tendencies? ANd so those destructive behaviors are a mix of nature and nurture--i.e. with perfect parents and circumstances, they might not be destructive adults, but since they didn't have that nurturing, they maintained their natural tendencies?

Sarah Koster wrote:
I have noticed that, while all persons I've observed to exhibit primarily antisocial behaviors experienced abuse, neglect and/or abandonment by their biological mother, not all the people I know who've been abused/abandoned by their mothers exhibit antisocial behaviors.

Absolutely and you would essentially be echoing the late Alice Miller's observations with this notion as well.  (One modification would be someone adopted at birth who nevertheless ends up subjected to maltreatment by *non*-biological caregivers.....that person might be expected to develop antisocial behavior as well, but it's a tough area to nail down without being the proverbial fly on the wall.)  The data suggest that such early life experiences often are 'risk factors', not destiny, for later antisocial behavior.  But I'm additionally curious to know whether this might be shown to extend to other non-human entities.  One might assume this to be the case because many, even if antisocial, will have learned to some extent the consequences of being caught/observed in unacceptable behavior meted out on other humans, while destructive behavior directed to non-humans might be more commonly ignored or even accepted.

Sarah Koster wrote:
I assume we can exclude hunting/killing livestock for food from violence against animals?

It's an assumption...yes.....that some will be fine with.  I admit I would have to consider the attitude and practices of the hunter/livestock harvester as this might still reveal some disturbing aspects of a personality.  If I'm not mistaken, the American Humane Society has published on links between interpersonal aggression and unnecessary aggression towards animals so it seems it may at least be something to keep on one's radar in the thought process around this sensitive issue.

Sarah Koster wrote:
Are you familiar with RAD, Reactive Attachment Disorder? To my understanding it's basically the diagnosis assigned to children who've been passed around from caretaker to caretaker, unable to form stable bonds with them, who exhibit antisocial behavior.

Yes.....am quite a fan of Bruce Perry who has noted often this revolving door in (past??.....ongoing???) concepts of foster care.    

Anyway, all of these tough issues with many unanswered questions.   But with so many studies and researches using the ACE cohort and dataset, would be an interesting topic to explore.  I'm thinking one first would have to arrive at some definitions of what constitutes an aggressive versus compassionate disposition towards the natural world and be able to adjust the definitions and parameters for those who've really never been away from deep urban areas versus those who've never been within a deep urban area.   Formulating such a study gets tricky in a hurry.

Nicole Alderman

1. Because of the nurturing, do they outgrow their antisocial/destructive behaviors?

2. (a) Do children who have these innate tendencies and DON'T have nurturing parents, maintain their destructive tendencies? ANd
(b) so those destructive behaviors are a mix of nature and nurture--i.e. with perfect parents and circumstances, they might not be destructive adults, but since they didn't have that nurturing, they maintained their natural tendencies?

Was trying to formulate a longer and more complicated response, but I think the take home answers to all is...... "maybe".  Being complex creatures, there is some ability to alter the pathway for those dealt a pretty band hand from the get-go, but if better nurturing fails to turn the ship around it's unfortunate.....kudos for those who tried along the way to help, but some acceptance of things not working out also seems in order so as not to get mired in what feels like failure.  I suspect Donald Winnicott would have said that the parents needn't even be perfect....just "good enough" and concerned enough about their children's future and their level of compassion for other things and beings around them.  Again, tough issue for which things don't fit neatly into boxes or categories.  But a very interesting topic to me.

The nature vs nurture debate has taken a twist in the light of epigenetics, and the fact environmental influences can be passed through multiple generations

epigenetics

Nature IS nurture e.g. trauma that parents go through leave epigenetic markers that may be passed on to the next generation who are more anxious than offspring of those not suffering trauma. This puts a whole new light on the biblical term 'sins of the Father'. The nurturing is imprinted in the nature. So why still the debate.

While I don't subscribe to the bible I do see this pattern has been observed a long time ago.

Once again we've proven ourselves to be ignorant of actual truths while blindly pursuing goals that won't deliver their promises (e.g. Human genome project). We're big on hyperbole and noble ideals. Short on sense.

Our continuous warring is destroying societies for generations to come via multi generational trauma. How long can they continue before everyone is directly or indirectly affected by their pursuit of resources sorry freedom.

But no, we all waste time and resources over silly debates. I just spent 18 months weighing in on a two century debate re what drives evolution. I still do it cos I'm right But... who cares about these debates only those with vested interest it's endless. Except in a context of how can we repair the mess we make I'm trying to avoid taking sides. Nurture is part of our nature. Is embedded in it.

Epigenetics reads the environment in real time and leaves impressions that carry on so our children are also biologically aware of various environmental stressors. Should these temporary markers be repeated e.g. multiple generations get chased by lions, harassed by nasty men... it may become hard wired for men to be wary of lions when hunting, and women to be wary of men period.

What would be far more interesting is not nonsense about how humans vary in reaction to specific stimuli - OMG how boring... but which stimuli cause manifestations of antisocial behaviour; those stimuli  that are not considered illegal e.g. cheating, lying, dealing in half truths for profit, victimising, et al.

It's not the boogeyman; It's the A-hole boss. The misunderstandings between friends, the schoolyard bully, the cheating spouse. A constant Chinese water torture style Drip Drip Drip of bullshit till your skin crawls all over. Then you have children.

Welcome to the jingle.

Edit: Rather ranty there. Scuse me. Can't solve a problem without understanding what the problem is. Nature vs nurture helps nothing. Epigenetics puts it past its use by date.

Dean Brown wrote:

What would be far more interesting is ..... which stimuli cause manifestations of antisocial behaviour; those stimuli  that are not considered illegal e.g. cheating, lying, dealing in half truths for profit, victimising, et al.

Some of this is being addressed, in my assessment, by Jennifer Freyd at the University of Oregon with the idea of "betrayal trauma".  That being, the more we are emotionally invested in a caregiver/institution as looking out for our interest, the worse off to our psyche is being maltreated, lied to, etc. by those sources.  Which would raise another question, triggering and sensitive though it may be:  Would bullying from those with whom one was not emotionally invested have nearly the effect on the bullied if the bullied was provided the opposite by those with whom they are emotionally invested?  A corollary perhaps--if one feels bullied by those who are *supposed* to care (i.e., a higher score on the 'betrayal' scale), are they more sensitive to/affected by being bullied by someone to whom they are not emotionally close?  As with so many of these issues, it seems best when viewed through a developmental lens.....there are sensitive periods of human development when some of these issues are being perceived and integrated more acutely than at other times.

Dean Brown wrote: The nature vs nurture debate has taken a twist in the light of epigenetics, and the fact environmental influences can be passed through multiple generations

I just spent 18 months weighing in on a two century debate re what drives evolution. I still do it cos I'm right But... who cares about these debates only those with vested interest it's endless. Except in a context of how can we repair the mess we make I'm trying to avoid taking sides. Nurture is part of our nature. Is embedded in it.

Epigenetics reads the environment in real time and leaves impressions that carry on so our children are also biologically aware of various environmental stressors. Should these temporary markers be repeated e.g. multiple generations get chased by lions, harassed by nasty men... it may become hard wired for men to be wary of lions when hunting, and women to be wary of men period.

Interestingly enough, not long ago, I spent time debating someone who was convinced that epigenetics disproves evolution. Among other points I raised was the fact that epigeneticists themselves make no such claim. And it may be that only those with a vested interest care about the debate, but I think that it can in some cases directly relate to how we clean up the mess... e.g. if a solution is found, but based on science that vested interests deny. Climate change is an example of just such an intersection between debate and solution. We see opinion-driven politics shoving science aside again and again on that issue.

Please don't turn my thread into an ulcer factory ^_^;;; I don't think people go there to look for volunteers. Very interesting stuff though guys, I was lazy today and gonna read the whole pagey dealy shibang before I get to it. Gotta know exactly what I'm looking for before I go looking.

Sarah Koster wrote:.... gonna read the whole pagey dealy shibang before I get to it. Gotta know exactly what I'm looking for before I go looking.

What is the "pagey dealy shebang"???   I'm not familiar with this term.  Thanks!  Also, Sarah, was there a more specific kind of research that you were hoping to do with this thread?.....Statistical analysis, web-based searching and info collation,.....or something else?

Jason H. wrote: Interestingly enough, not long ago, I spent time debating someone who was convinced that epigenetics disproves evolution. Among other points I raised was the fact that epigeneticists themselves make no such claim....

You are correct and I would be concerned about any epigeneticist claiming otherwise.   The evidence supports the notion that epigenetics (along with other factors) supports the rapid response to changes in the experienced environment and this response *can* persist through some generations thereafter, but without continued exposure to the original inducing environment in those subsequent generations, tends to drop back down to baseline levels.  The more hard-wired genetic inheritance occurs via mutation in the genome and subsequent selection on that/those mutations as a consequence of the environment.  The key difference being that such a mutation often becomes, relatively speaking, "fixed" throughout subsequent generations, irrespective of the presence or absence of the original inducing environment.  With long enough time, however, ..... i.e. tens to hundreds or more of generations..... even such hard-wired changes can be lost through numerous mechanisms.  Both epigenetics and hard-wired inheritance are at play most visibly in your garden when saving seeds generation after generation and being exposed year after year to differing environments.....this year being hot and dry, next year being cold and wet, the following year being clobbered by grasshoppers or aphids, etc.

Puts Staff Hat on:  Sarah's right, let's keep this thread on topic and avoid dragging it into the cider press.  The original request was for research topics, not a long debate about anything.  Thanks!!!

Takes Staff Hat off:  Phew, Raven's right, that is a heavy hat.  Sarah, I've been curious about something but haven't had the time to research it.  Maybe this would interest you:  

Some plants don't grow in my zone (4a) because it's apparently too cold.  I suspect that there are different death modalities for each type of plant.  Some die from the limbs getting below X degrees and that kills the whole plant.  Some die from the ground freezing to a depth of Y inches.  Some could die due to a period of warmth above Z degrees followed by colder temps.  I'm sure there are other ways they die.  I've wondered if this could be sorted out and made simple enough for my brain so that if I have a microclimate I can experiment with the best zone 5 plant possible.  I have sunny, low wind microclimates that don't have as much snow cover.  Some plants would handle that, some might not but I don't know which.  In that case the branches may be warmer but the roots may freeze harder due to less snow cover.  So a plant that handles Indiana weather (still cold and the ground probably freezes harder than WI) might be great for me to try.

My apologies to all. I went on a rant at the expense of the original posters request it was not the appropriate place or time. I am trying to change my reactive nature so pulling me up is welcome though ideally I stop doing it.

Mike Jay wrote:Sarah, I've been curious about something but haven't had the time to research it.  Maybe this would interest you:  

Some plants don't grow in my zone (4a) because it's apparently too cold.  I suspect that there are different death modalities for each type of plant.  Some die from the limbs getting below X degrees and that kills the whole plant.  Some die from the ground freezing to a depth of Y inches.  Some could die due to a period of warmth above Z degrees followed by colder temps.  I'm sure there are other ways they die.  I've wondered if this could be sorted out and made simple enough for my brain so that if I have a microclimate I can experiment with the best zone 5 plant possible.  I have sunny, low wind microclimates that don't have as much snow cover.  Some plants would handle that, some might not but I don't know which.  In that case the branches may be warmer but the roots may freeze harder due to less snow cover.  So a plant that handles Indiana weather (still cold and the ground probably freezes harder than WI) might be great for me to try.

Yes, this is more along the lines of the kind of research I was thinking of! ^_^;; While I'm fascinated with psychology and can put a lot of energy into reading about it when I'm okay, but the topic in question is much too close to home for me to want to delve into right now. I'm recovering from surgery after being assaulted by someone with a very high ACE score and my grandmother is dying, so I'm trying to look after my dad and sister while my mom looks after her mother. So looking up stuff about plants is much more pleasant distraction at the moment.
I've done some thinking about this one too, there are a lot of plants which are strongly influenced by day length as far as the maturation and dormancy cycles. Even during a very warm autumn, the trees will drop their leaves once the the daylight drops below so many hours, and I'm surprised there's not more of a dual classification that addresses both latitude/daylight suitability and climate. Heck, our zone system doesn't even take precipitation into consideration. So I'm thinking, those varieties that require more daylight for longer than is available, are probably a bust regardless of microclimate. (Like bananas.) Soil temperature is affected by composition, light exposure, terrain and so forth. I think that plants with a shallow root system will tend to be more sensitive to soil temperature.
Anyway are there certain types of plants that you're particularly interested in or enjoy eating?
task: sort plants according to mode of death from cold.

Hi, Sarah

Your topic reminded me of a couple of threads that you might be interested in.  Even if you are not interested in a job, I found these enlightening.

I always love learning about new things that are not in my world.

https://permies.com/t/57559/Working-home-telecommuting-homestead

https://permies.com/t/56135/online-job

Yay, I'm glad it's interesting!

Sarah Koster wrote:Anyway are there certain types of plants that you're particularly interested in or enjoy eating?

Yes, funny you should mention bananas...  I have a some I know I want to try in a heated greenhouse that day length could be a problem.  And I'm open to many that could work in microclimates in my food forest.  Here's a rough list:

Food forest (zone 4a on paper):
Microclimates:

I have pallet wall sun traps that can warm spots up (only provide wind protection at night so if the snow melts due to the sun, the ground may freeze harder)

I have spots with summer full sun and winter shade so they have extra snow cover (1-2')

I have a 6' high retaining wall facing south with the house to the East

Possibilities:
Pawpaws
Persimmon
Quince
Peach
Other zone 5/6 fruits or berries that don't grow normally in zone 4

Greenhouse (tropical or possibly just Florida) 20'x40'x18' high so trees are intended
Possibilities:
Bananas
Avocado
Pineapple
Mango
Passionfruit
Coconut
Miracleberry

Mike Jay wrote:

Some plants don't grow in my zone (4a) because it's apparently too cold.  I suspect that there are different death modalities for each type of plant.  Some die from the limbs getting below X degrees and that kills the whole plant.  Some die from the ground freezing to a depth of Y inches.  Some could die due to a period of warmth above Z degrees followed by colder temps.  I'm sure there are other ways they die.  I've wondered if this could be sorted out and made simple enough for my brain so that if I have a microclimate I can experiment with the best zone 5 plant possible.  I have sunny, low wind microclimates that don't have as much snow cover.  Some plants would handle that, some might not but I don't know which.  In that case the branches may be warmer but the roots may freeze harder due to less snow cover.  So a plant that handles Indiana weather (still cold and the ground probably freezes harder than WI) might be great for me to try.

I'm very interested in this as well, and have a theory of my own, but I have no idea if it is valid.  Considering that the ground here can freeze several feet deep, younger trees, shrubs, and plants that don't have extremely deep roots, must freeze completely here, both above and below ground.  It doesn't make sense to me that if it is -10 the plant is okay "freezing" to that temperature, but it's not okay "freezing" to -30. My current thinking is perhaps what kills a zone 6 plant in zone 4 is the fact that on average, it freezes sooner in zone 4 and stays frozen longer.  Perhaps a plant has some sort of "reserve" that lets it freeze for 3 months without dying, but 4 months exceeds its reserve and that kills it?  Maybe it isn't the actual temperature that kills it, but the length of time it can "hold out" before dying.  If my idea has any basis in fact, it would open some doors to growing plants in another zone that may not have been explored thoroughly.

If you could find any information on this Sarah, I would be very grateful.  It's something I have been thinking about for a few years now, but just haven't had time to research it myself.

Man! There actually is a lot of research on the mechanisms of cold-hardiness of plants, but I'm having trouble finding articles that are available without a subscription. I may have to go hassle a librarian, but it's promising at least!

EDIT: This article is old, but interesting. There's some irrelevant gobbletygoop towards the end but it does explain a little about cold hardiness. It's a pdf, not a webpage: What Determines Cold Hardiness

Thanks Sarah, it sounds like this topic interested you...  I read the PDF and learned quite a bit.  It would be awesome if there was a list put together somewhere of all the plants I'm selfishly interested in and what their chilling sensitivities are.  Knowing that bananas can survive but give streaked fruit if kept under 50 degrees is a great example.  Hopefully you have some good research librarians near you to help  Thanks!!!

Hi Sarah,
Its a year later, I hope you're doing great and you're no longer bored.  

I do have a project which requires a lot of research.  If the project succeeds we'll enable permie designers to tackle harder designs - better and faster than is done today. Ideally it will help give desertification a run for its money and help ground our high-strung climate.

Perhaps you're still in the market for projects and/or work?

I intend to create a fairly cutting edge software tool which assists agroecologist designers, permaculture designers and restoration designers do their job better.  

This project will use the many recent advances in machine learning as well as the public or cheap eco, hydro, geo and even real estate data increasingly available of today to create an initial model.  This fairly untrained model will then be trained in a supervised manor by paid permaculture experts.

Please also let me know what pay rate you'd suggest we set this work at.  Your first research assignment would be to create a list of all the current software based design tools used by design professionals in fields similar to agroecology, permaculture and/or restoration.